In the post-debate spin room, CBS News’ Major Garret corralled Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) and challenged him on Donald Trump’s reluctance to commit to accept the results of an election that has not happened yet.

After giving Garrett his prepared remarks praising Trump for “winning the debate outright” and emphasizing the issues that matter to the American people including immigration, crime, national security and the Supreme Court, Garrett re-asked him his original question regarding the acceptance of November’s election.

Pence said, “there’s no question Donald Trump will accept the outcome of this election because he’s going to win the election.”

Garrett pressed and Pence laid it out for the media to understand exactly what’s at play here. He detailed media bias and inherent voter fraud that goes unreported by that same biased media. After several minute explaining the basis of concern over the systems in the media and political systems lined up on ehalf of Democrats, he summed things up:

He’s a candidate for President of the United States of America. He has every right, he has the prerogative, to wait and see how the results of the election come out. Sometimes extraordinary circumstances develop. We saw that in the year 2000. When Al Gore conceded the election, and then withdrew his concession, and the matter ultimately was resolved in the Supreme Court. I think what you heard Donald Trump say tonight was out of concern for, frankly, the fairly obvious bias in the national media, and out of concern for pockets and instances of voter fraud around the country. He said he would look at it at the time. He reserved the right and as a candidate for president of the United States of America. I have every confidence that if this election is conducted in a way that is fair and proper, we’ll move forward as a country together.

Maybe this was more of a Rorschach test than first thought. When a reporter asks a tough question of a president, many of the people who get upset at the “tone” and who cheer for the reporter switch sides when the party affiliation of the President changes. So far, though, only Bill Maher has managed to toss race in as an issue with Major Garrett’s sharp exchange with Barack Obama yesterday:

#MajorGarrett is a huge asshole. If U wanna "strike a nerve" with POTUS, why not just scream the N word? That shld get his attention.

Liberal HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher took offense to a CBS White House reporter who on Wednesday admitted to intentionally provokingPresident Obama with a question about Iran.

“Major Garrett is a huge a–hole,” Maher wrote late Wednesday in a message to his 3 million-plus followers on Twitter.

Maher suggested Garrett’s interaction with the president had a racial element to it. “If you wanna ‘strike a nerve’ with [Obama], why not just scream the N word?” Maher’s tweet continued. “That should get his attention.”

It’s interesting that Maher didn’t actually use @MajorCBS in the tweet. If Maher really wanted to send a message, why not actually send it into Garrett’s mentions column? Why hashtag the name instead?

On top of that, it’s a little odd to see someone like Maher object to a tough question for a President, even one calculated for provocation, as Garrett himself admits was his intent. Isn’t that what Maher does for a living with his guests? It’s been a very long while since I’ve bothered to watch Real Time, but Maher’s entire schtick is provocation, both of his on-set guests and cheap-shot jokes at people who aren’t there. As Erik Wemple noted in his defense of Garrett, the framing of the question was provocative but the subject matter was “a critical matter” on which Obama had not been challenged. If Obama had been Republican, one can imagine a much different reaction from Maher.

Furthermore, Chris Cillizza argues, it was apparent by that point in the presser that the reporters were being used as window dressing by Obama:

In truth, Obama had very little interest in engaging the press and their questions Wednesday. Instead, he wanted to use them as a prop to get out his talking points and answer his growing chorus of critics on the Iran deal. …

So, when the president chooses to give a press conference, the expectation is that he will, you know, answer questions. That’s not really what he did Wednesday. Instead, he used the edifice of what looked and sort of sounded like a press conference to dismiss critics and ensure that his case was made by the person he believes is the best messenger for it: himself.

This was a speech on Iran that reporters attended. That’s not the reporters’ fault — they can only do so much if the president is determined to filibuster every question and go on at length (and then some). And it’s a near-certainty that Obama could care less what the media thinks of him at this stage of his presidency. (He likely never much cared.)

Still, what he did Wednesday was something well short of an open back and forth between the leader of the country and the fourth estate. You might not care. But you should.

Again, one wonders why a media figure like Maher thinks asking a tough question of a President determined to avoid them is not just assholery but also racist. Golly, I can’t wait for a Republican to be president so that dissent can once more be patriotic, and the media can suddenly feel the need to hold the powerful accountable again.

How does it feel to get rebuked by the President of the United States on national television for asking a tough question? While some of Major Garrett’s colleagues in the media wagged their fingers at the framing of his question, the CBS White House correspondent doesn’t seem to be losing sleep over it. “Clearly, it struck a nerve,” Garrett tells Contessa Brewer. “That was my intention.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKkQaQu6TvM

“Clearly it struck a nerve,” Garrett told CBS anchor Contessa Brewer. “That was my intention. Because everyone who works for the president, and the families of those four Americans, have heard the president say he’s not content and they will work overtime to win their eventual release.”

“Was it provocative? Yes. Was it intended to be as such? Absolutely,” Garrett said on the network’s livestreaming website, adding he wanted to get Obama to share “a full range of his interpretation of the whys and why-nots” of not including the Americans’ release in the deal announced Tuesday.

“I believe that was achieved. Sometimes you have to take a president’s scolding, if that’s the best way to characterize it, in order to get to an answer like that, that’s part of my job. My skin’s plenty tough enough, and I look forward to the next press conference,” Garrett added.

Garrett wings a rebuke right back at Obama to start off his remarks. “Politicians, especially those who are elected President of the United States,” Garrett notes, “are very adept at creating straw men… That’s exactly what the President did.” That’s exactly what this President always does, including at this press conference. Obama crafted his argument as if the deal was the only alternative to an immediate war, which is utter nonsense — and ignores the fact that Iran is conducting hot wars around the region already in Syria, Yemen, and in support of Hamas in Gaza.

Obama’s defense of his exclusion of the four Americans was also a straw man. There is nothing mutually exclusive about negotiating for prisoners in a diplomatic deal. Obama got around to a better explanation toward the end, but the beginning of his answer made it sound as though Obama had to choose between one or the other, which is only true if you’re a really lousy negotiator. The Iran deal speaks for itself on that point.

Not all of Garrett’s journalistic peers spent the evening sneering at him. Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple called the reaction among the media “a troubling deference to pomp”:

Yes, it was theatrical. Yes, it was a bit presumptuous. Yes, it laid out a particular case. But it bore in on a critical matter, and one that is all over the news: Why are these Americans still sitting in Iranian prisons while U.S. officials are touting their diplomatic achievements? Though Garrett got ripped for asking the question, Obama went forth and gave an interesting response to it, including: “Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, ‘You know what? Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals.’”

Let’s circle back to Bash’s indictment: “But there’s a fine line, especially — maybe I’m old school — standing in the East Room — a fine line between asking a tough question and maybe crossing that line a little bit, and being disrespectful. So I think that that happened there.” Bold text added to highlight a troubling deference to pomp.

There’s been a lot of that over the last six-plus years. I can’t wait for a Republican to win the presidency so that all of the fainting-couch class of the White House press corps can rediscover their journalistic toughness.

Via the Free Beacon, for one brief shining moment, this guy got to see what life with the media is like for a Republican politician.

The answer to Garrett’s question, incidentally, is that the prisoners are undoubtedly being held to sweeten the pot for the next big U.S/Iran deal, which the Iranians themselves have reportedly been dangling.

[A]ccording to top administration officials, Mr. Obama has always been after something much bigger than capping Iran’s nuclear program, and he got it—the strategic opportunity to begin converting Iran from foe to “friend.”

Iranian negotiators understood well what’s been driving the U.S. president, and they have used the prospect of becoming “a friend” as their best bargaining card. For over a year now in small private conversations and strolls, they have been painting rosy pictures of Iranian-American cooperation.

The Iranian list of possibilities goes to most of Washington’s principal worries about the broad Middle East. They would step up their fighting alongside Iraqi troops to combat the so-called Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) in central Iraq. And they would do much more in Syria to go after the headquarters and main forces that ISIS has there. They spoke of finding “solutions” to the civil war in Yemen between Sunnis and Iran-backed Shiites. They raised hopes of forging better relations with America’s “partners” in the Gulf. They pressed the idea of renewing the cooperation they once had with the U.S. fighting the Taliban at the beginning of the Afghan war.

Yesterday I argued that including the prisoners in the nuclear deal would have been smart for Obama since it’d give him at least one concrete victory to tout among its many failures. The counterargument is that the bad news surrounding the deal would have overwhelmed that good news and would have left the two sides with nothing to build on, assuming there are already plans in the works to build on this. Maybe the prisoners are being saved for when sanctions are actually lifted; that sort of goodwill gesture from Iran will be Obama’s cue to tell Americans, “See? I told you they would start moderating if we came to terms on their nuclear program. It’s happening exactly as I said.” That would be a shrewd way to lock in public support for the deal, which exists if polls are to be believed but which is heavily qualified by the fact that Americans don’t expect Iran to stick to it. A few well orchestrated olive branches during implementation could move those numbers, which will help Hillary during the campaign.

Oh, by the way, no questions today about Planned Parenthood selling off the organs of dead babies for fun and profit despite the fact that the presser ran for more than an hour. He did, however, get a question about Bill Cosby because of course he did. Ed will have something on that soon.

Via Mediaite, some evening entertainment to get you excited about tomorrow night. File it under “Questions to be Asked in the Sixth Year of a Floundering Presidency.” Garrett’s not just trolling, either. If airstrikes are already happening, ground troops are out of the question, and O’s already publicly resolved to “dismantle” ISIS, what’s left to say? I guess he could delve into the shift from a humanitarian mission to a mission of reconquest, but something tells me he doesn’t want to highlight mission creep in a speech designed to build public support. Although, I’m not sure the point of this speech is to build public support. The public already overwhelmingly supports bombing ISIS. And O’s obviously not trying to put pressure on Congress to pass an AUMF by lobbying their constituents. Despite what people like Mitch McConnell think, the king insists on maintaining his royal prerogatives:

#Breaking: POTUS told leaders in Congress he already has the authority he needs for military action against #ISIS outlined in Wed. speech.

The newsy part of this, I guess, will be him specifying which countries are handling which parts of the broader mission to roll ISIS back, although we already know the basics of that too. The U.S. is providing air support; Britain, Canada, and other allies are providing military advisors; Jordan and the Saudis are providing intelligence; and the Kurds and Iraqis (and Iranians, shhhh) are providing the infantry. Beyond that, the only point of this speech, I take it, is that it’s just something Americans feel the president should do when he’s about to commit the country to a war that could last years and draw reprisals domestically. In different times, an address like this would be meaningful as a way for the commander-in-chief to seek the consent of the governed through their representatives. But since that no longer matters in matters of war, it’s really just a grandiose FYI. It’s a pantomime of democracy.

By the way, if you can believe it, he’ll be making these remarks one year to the very day that he gave a primetime speech proposing that we bomb the sworn enemy of the people he’ll be proposing we bomb tomorrow night. No foolin’.

Via RCP, think of it. In an election year, by his press secretary’s own admission, the most hard-hitting interview of a sitting president of the United States was conducted by a guy whose show used to follow a show about puppets making crank calls. I wonder if Carney intended this as a giant middle finger to the White House press corps or it just ended up that way while he was focused on pushing his real agenda, namely, denying seasoned reporters more access to Obama. The White House is already spare with that, preferring to do sitdowns with Zach Galifianakis and “Pimp With a Limp” because those people can give them a pipeline to key constituencies in a way that, say, Jake Tapper or Sharyl Attkisson can’t. The more the White House can convince the public that comedians and entertainers are fair substitutes for real reporters, the more they can justify bypassing those reporters and sticking to comedians and entertainers — nearly all of whom, let’s face it, are Obama sympathizers.

But then, so are most of the “impartial” newsmen who’ve interviewed him so let’s not complain too much. Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a professional journalist get something really interesting out of O during a conversation? Why wouldn’t Stewart, whose job requires him to follow the news closely every day, ask questions that are as challenging as the average reporter’s? To believe otherwise is to agree, implicitly, with the media’s pretense that what it does requires an exalted skill that’s beyond the layman’s grasp. Stewart, frankly, enjoys a freedom that most big-media reporters don’t — he can afford to irritate the White House with tough questions because he knows they covet his young audience and they’re naturally loath to antagonize a guy who gets paid to goof on people in power. (Mostly conservative people in power, but not always.) If you’re Joe Schmo from Reuters, embarrassing O in a tough interview might cost you or your agency your sources in the White House. If you’re Jon Stewart, you can relax knowing that Joe Biden or Michelle Obama or whoever will be back later this year to make the GOTV pitch to twentysomethings on your show. Same goes, say, for Spanish-language media — which is far deeper in the tank for Obama than Stewart is. As American media fragments, politicians will find they get more electoral bang for their buck in dealing with key niche providers than in dealing with mass media. This is one byproduct of that.

Major Garrett got a rather unique opportunity, especially these days, for a White House beat reporter. The CBS reporter actually got an interview with the President, an honor which has largely gone to local TV stations and entertainment-journalism reporters over the last couple of years, or to anchors of national news broadcasts. Garrett got a bonus when Vice President Joe Biden joined Barack Obama briefly, which prompted Garrett to ask about Obama’s endorsement for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination race. And the answer was … necessarily awkward:

“I don’t necessarily want to jam them up,” he said. “We all are part of this relay race whether we’re vice presidents, presidents, the truth is we build off of what folks have done previously and some cases that includes Republican presidents.

“That’s the beauty of our democracy, it keeps on evolving and I’m sure that there are going to be some things that, whoever the next president is, want to continue, there are going to be some things that they’re going to want to do differently, but the trajectory is hopefully going to be one in which we’re broadening opportunity for every American.”

Obama declined to say who he would prefer in 2016.

Obama did say that Biden was “the finest Vice President in history,” a statement that had some produced no small amount of mirth on Twitter. Really, though, what else was Obama supposed to say? The fortunate aspect of that statement is that declaring any VP the finest in history amounts to an unchallengeable claim — there simply are no metrics for success in the role, only failure. With Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew tied for worst, every other VP has at least an argument for primacy simply for managing to finish the job.

As for endorsements, the same holds here, too. Outgoing Presidents rarely interfere in primaries, assuming the role of party leader and staying above the partisan fray. Only for VPs does that change — Biden has a shot at it — but usually only after the outcome is all but guaranteed. Ronald Reagan endorsed George H. W. Bush, but not until May 1988, long after Bush had made his nomination certain. Bill Clinton endorsed Al Gore in 2000, but only Bill Bradley challenged Gore in the primary, and that was hardly a serious bid. In neither case did the incumbent act to split the party, and don’t bet that Obama will do that either. If Obama endorses anyone, it will only happen because one candidate is running away with the nomination and Obama wants to force an end to the process to limit damage to the nominee.

In other words, Obama played it smart, even if Garrett forced an awkward moment on him and Biden.

Mikulski, after all, was a social worker before Obama was 5 and a successful community organizer before he was 10. She led a campaign to stop a proposed 16-lane highway from plowing through her native Highlandtown neighborhood in East Baltimore. She was elected to the City Council in 1971, the U.S. House in 1976, and the Senate in 1986. Mikulski is the dean of the Senate women, and she sports a career voting record of 93.3 with Americans for Democratic Action. She passionately supports Obamacare.

Before questioning Marilyn Tavenner, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, at a congressional hearing Tuesday, Mikulski said something that ought to make Obama’s blood run cold.

“The launching of the Affordable Care Act has been more than bumpy,” Mikulski said. “I believe there’s been a crisis of confidence created in the dysfunctional nature of the website, the canceling of policies, and sticker shock from some people. We read in The Baltimore Sun this morning that 73,000 Marylanders’ policies will be canceled. So there has been fear, doubt, and a crisis of confidence.”

“Crisis of confidence.” The last time that phrase was memorably uttered was in 1979. It did not turn out well for President Carter.

And in comparison to Jimmy Carter’s time, this particular crisis of confidence is orders of magnitude higher. Carter was mildly incompetent in comparison to the profound incompetence we’re saddled with at the moment. The ObamaCare roll out is just the latest indicator of the depth of that incompetence. And Mikulski is essentially taking it easy on the administration. Crisis of confidence doesn’t even begin to describe how many Americans feel not only about ObamaCare but the Obama administration.

A more devastating assessment of the law’s woes and the long-term consequences of the “fear” and “doubt” surrounding policy cancellations, a still-troubled website, and Obama’s own credibility gap could not have been uttered.

As anyone in politics will tell you, nothing wounds deeper in times of woe than truth told by a friend. It cuts in private. In public, it leaves a bleeding gash.

[…]

One component of this crisis is Obama’s own credibility. The federal website lacks credibility. The promise that people who liked their plan couldkeep their plan lacks credibility. Promises of transparency about the website’s privacy protections lack credibility. Vows of transparency onenrollment numbers, now apparently to be released next week, lack credibility.

What do we get from the administration when confronted with Mikulski’s words? The usual avoidance:

“The president shares Senator Mikulski’s frustration with the problems that we have seen,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

When I asked if Mikulski’s rhetoric was unduly alarmist, Carney said it was not. There you have it: White House confirmation that its signature legislative achievement now suffers from a crisis of confidence.

Indeed.

What Mikulski has articulated is not only the problem with ObamaCare, but the problem for Democrats. As the Bush presidency ended and the presidential elections were underway, we were told there was “Bush fatigue” and that Republicans would take a drubbing because of it.

We’re still a year away from the mid-terms, but Obama fatigue has set in early and for good. It is possible that Democrats have a feeling that 2014 may not be a very good year for them if this crisis, for which they are solely responsible, continues uncorrected and is pinned on them.